On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 10:27 AM, Peter Saint-Andre <stpe...@stpeter.im> wrote: > FYI. I might include the proposed text in XEP-0060, too. > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Re: [Juser] PEP and Presence > Date: Wed, 07 Apr 2010 11:21:27 -0600 > From: Peter Saint-Andre <stpe...@stpeter.im> > Reply-To: Jabber/XMPP end-user discussion list <ju...@jabber.org> > To: Jabber/XMPP end-user discussion list <ju...@jabber.org> > > On 4/5/10 10:01 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: >> On 2/20/10 4:01 PM, Peter Flindt wrote: >>> Hello, >> >> Hi. Sorry about the delayed reply. >> >>> When I set e.g. a Mood and go offline, what should happens? >>> >>> a)The client send only the offline presence, the server regonize this >>> and remove the mood >> >> We don't expect the server to be that smart, and in any case perhaps the >> user wants their mood to outlast the end of their presence session. >> >>> b)The client SHOULD send as the last action an empty Mood to the server >>> c)The client SHOULD do nothing, the server SHOULD do nothing too, the >>> mood stay for all subscribers until the owner change it again >>> d)The client SHOULD/CAN include an option "Keep the Mood, even though >>> you offline" >> >> Any one of (b), (c), or (d) is a reasonable choice -- it depends on what >> the user wants, which the client cand determine by asking the question >> in (d). >> >>> e) ??? >>> f)Is there anything that SHOULD happens if the user goes from offline >>> to online? >> >> I don't think so. >> >>> Is this somewhere defined, what XEP or RFC? >> >> Not yet. We could add some text about it to XEP-0163 or XEP-0060. > > I've written the following text for inclusion in XEP-0163: > > ### > > Note: PEP ties the receipt of PEP notifications to the subscriber's > presence, but does not tie the generation of PEP notifications to the > publisher's presence. If the publisher wishes to stop generating PEP > events (or to generate an "empty" event as can be done for some PEP > payloads) before ending its presence session, the publisher MUST direct > its client to do so and MUST NOT depend on the PEP service to > automatically "zero out" its PEP information when the PEP service > receives unavailable presence from the publisher. > > ###
Maybe I'm missing something, but say my last publish was this: <iq from='jul...@capulet.lit/balcony' type='set' id='pub1'> <pubsub xmlns='http://jabber.org/protocol/pubsub'> <publish node='http://jabber.org/protocol/tune'> <item> <tune xmlns='http://jabber.org/protocol/tune'> <artist>Gerald Finzi</artist> <length>255</length> <source>Music for "Love's Labors Lost" (Suite for small orchestra)</source> <title>Introduction (Allegro vigoroso)</title> <track>1</track> </tune> </item> </publish> </pubsub> </iq> Would zeroing it out be: <iq from='jul...@capulet.lit/balcony' type='set' id='pub1'> <pubsub xmlns='http://jabber.org/protocol/pubsub'> <publish node='http://jabber.org/protocol/tune'> <item /> </publish> </pubsub> </iq> Or: <iq from='jul...@capulet.lit/balcony' type='set' id='pub1'> <pubsub xmlns='http://jabber.org/protocol/pubsub'> <publish node='http://jabber.org/protocol/tune'> <item> <tune xmlns='http://jabber.org/protocol/tune' /> </item> </publish> </pubsub> </iq> While either is functional, I believe the first one is logical. On the other hand, a client could potentially be confused by: <message from='jul...@capulet.lit' to='ro...@montague.lit/orchard' type='headline' id='foo'> <event xmlns='http://jabber.org/protocol/pubsub#event'> <items node='http://jabber.org/protocol/tune'> <item /> </items> </event> <delay xmlns='urn:xmpp:delay' stamp='2003-12-13T23:58:37Z'/> </message> Perhaps I'm over-analyzing this. Thoughts? However, I think that PEP needs this as a clarification if you're going to introduce "zeroing out" language. -Fritzy
